Regina v Commisioner of the Metropolitan Police
Status: Positive or Neutral Judicial Treatment
R. (on the application of Rottman) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
House of Lords
16 May 2002
Case Analysis
Where Reported
[2002] UKHL 20; [2002] 2 A.C. 692; [2002] 2 W.L.R. 1315; [2002] 2 All E.R. 865; [2002] H.R.L.R. 32; 12 B.H.R.C. 329; [2002] Po. L.R. 124; [2002] A.C.D. 69; Times, May 21, 2002; Independent, July 1, 2002; Official Transcript
Case Digest
Subject: Criminal procedure
Keywords: Arrest; Extradition; PACE codes of practice; Right to respect for private and family life; Search and seizure
Summary: Police officers arresting respondent at home pursuant to Extradition Act 1989 s 8(1) had common law power to search home and seize goods and documents - Search and seizure provisions of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 did not apply to extradition offence but common law power not extinguished - No violation of European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ss 17(1)(a)(i), 17(4), 18, 19, 32.
Abstract: The Commissioner appealed against a decision ([2001] EWHC Admin 576, Times, October 26, 2001) that the search and seizure of material evidence from R's house subsequent to his arrest on a provisional warrant for extradition offences contravened R's rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 Sch.1 Part I Art.8. R had been arrested a few yards from his front door, but within the boundary of his property. The Commissioner maintained that the officers, having lawfully arrested R, had the power to search the house and seize material items under both the common law and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.18 and s.19.
Held, allowing the appeal (Lord Hope dissenting), that it was a well established principle of the common law that an arresting officer had the power to search the room in which a person had been arrested. Ghani v Jones [1970] 1 Q.B. 693 legitimately extended previous case law so as to permit an officer, who had entered a house and arrested a suspect
R. (on the application of Rottman) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
House of Lords
16 May 2002
Case Analysis
Where Reported
[2002] UKHL 20; [2002] 2 A.C. 692; [2002] 2 W.L.R. 1315; [2002] 2 All E.R. 865; [2002] H.R.L.R. 32; 12 B.H.R.C. 329; [2002] Po. L.R. 124; [2002] A.C.D. 69; Times, May 21, 2002; Independent, July 1, 2002; Official Transcript
Case Digest
Subject: Criminal procedure
Keywords: Arrest; Extradition; PACE codes of practice; Right to respect for private and family life; Search and seizure
Summary: Police officers arresting respondent at home pursuant to Extradition Act 1989 s 8(1) had common law power to search home and seize goods and documents - Search and seizure provisions of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 did not apply to extradition offence but common law power not extinguished - No violation of European Convention on Human Rights Art 8 - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ss 17(1)(a)(i), 17(4), 18, 19, 32.
Abstract: The Commissioner appealed against a decision ([2001] EWHC Admin 576, Times, October 26, 2001) that the search and seizure of material evidence from R's house subsequent to his arrest on a provisional warrant for extradition offences contravened R's rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 Sch.1 Part I Art.8. R had been arrested a few yards from his front door, but within the boundary of his property. The Commissioner maintained that the officers, having lawfully arrested R, had the power to search the house and seize material items under both the common law and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.18 and s.19.
Held, allowing the appeal (Lord Hope dissenting), that it was a well established principle of the common law that an arresting officer had the power to search the room in which a person had been arrested. Ghani v Jones [1970] 1 Q.B. 693 legitimately extended previous case law so as to permit an officer, who had entered a house and arrested a suspect